>>11301911>That's not an argument I'm afraid, deontology and consequentialism are two different things.Translation: I'm going to bring out jargon from ethics that have no relevance to the topic at hand as an obfuscation tactic. I have no real objections to provide.

>At this point it's clear you're looking for a reason to post your infographics so I'm just gonna stop arguing with you.Translation: you're going to start posting substantial and decisive evidence for your arguments, so I'm going to exit before you have the chance to knock out my belief system once and for all.

>Remember to confess after Mass, anger towards your fellow men is a sin.Translation: I have no real understanding of religion, and I do not practice it myself, but I will use it as a tool to bludgeon you with as one last ditch attempt to avoid confronting your arguments.

Leftists are some of the most disgusting creatures to walk the planet.

>>11301913The changes in action go hand-in-hand with changes in values. You'd have to be sophist to argue against this.

>>11301923>I am so delusional that if you consider Rawls to NOT be a conservative, then you must be an advocate for Goebbels Is this the power of leftist echochambers?

>>11301931>haha, no, it is YOU who has a distorted sense of the world for not thinking that the champion of social liberalism ISN'T A CONSERVATIVEFor fuck's sake dude. No reasonable person would agree with you. Get some fresh air, will you?

>>11301937I don't really know at this point. I'm all over the place. I used to be a leftist until I entered university and encountered sophist, virtue-signaling fucks like the people you're seeing in this thread. As much as I like reactionary thought nowadays, I still find myself skeptical (but not hateful towards) capitalism, and I still have fond feelings towards the early American republic. There's not really a coherent ideology that can capture the essence of EVERYTHING that is wrong with the human condition. But I've been finding that religion has been a good start so far.